O.C.G.A. § 19-9-66 (2019)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, annotations decided under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, former Code 1933, §§ 74-501 through 74-525, subsequently codified as §§ 19-9-40 through 19-9-64, are included in the annotations for this Code section. Purpose of former § 19-9-46 was prevention of jurisdictional conflicts between states. Webb v. Webb, 245 Ga. 650, 266 S.E.2d 463, 1980 Ga. LEXIS 882 (1980) (decided under former Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act). Informational requirements of former § 19-9-49 were necessary to effective functioning of former § 19-9-46. Youmans v. Youmans, 247 Ga. 529, 276 S.E.2d 837, 1981 Ga. LEXIS 716 (1981) (decided under former Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act). Jurisdiction in Georgia disallowed when proceeding pending in another state. - Wisconsin court was exercising jurisdiction in child custody proceeding substantially in conformity with the former Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act when Wisconsin had significant connections with both parents and child, was marital home of parties, and was state where child in question was born and in which parties’ divorce was obtained and all earlier child custody determinations were made. Consequently, it was improper for the Georgia court to exercise

the Georgia court’s jurisdiction in a proceeding brought by child’s mother, who had removed the child from Wisconsin and was residing in Georgia. Steele v. Steele, 250 Ga. 101, 296 S.E.2d 570, 1982 Ga. LEXIS 1012 (1982) (decided under former Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act). Florida court’s award of custody to the father was not entitled to recognition in Georgia since the Florida court assumed jurisdiction over issues of child custody in disregard of the requirement imposed by subsection (c) of former § 19-9-46 and since Georgia was the home state of the children at the time of the Florida court’s action. Thompson v. Thompson, 241 Ga. App. 616, 526 S.E.2d 576, 1999 Ga. App. LEXIS 1593 (1999) (decided under former Code Section 19-9-46). No requirement to confer with foreign court that lacked jurisdiction. - As Georgia was a child’s home state and South Carolina did not have jurisdiction over child custody under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, O.C.G.A. § 19-9-40 et seq., the Georgia trial court was not required by O.C.G.A. § 19-9-66(b) to confer with a South Carolina trial court where a parent had filed a custody action. Croft v. Croft, 298 Ga. App. 303, 680 S.E.2d 150, 2009 Ga. App. LEXIS 676 (2009). Jurisdiction properly exercised by Georgia court. - Record demonstrated that the North Carolina court was not

exercising jurisdiction under the former Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act because at the time of the former husband’s motion for change of custody, North Carolina had not been the child’s home state within six months before commencement of the custody proceedings; thus, the Georgia court did not err in assuming jurisdiction in these proceedings brought by the natural mother’s new husband for permanent adoption. Kelly v. Silverstein, 207 Ga. App. 381, 427 S.E.2d 851, 1993 Ga. App. LEXIS 211 (1993) (decided under former Code Section 19-9-46). Trial court erred in dismissing a husband’s divorce complaint on the ground that jurisdiction was properly with the Italian court because the trial court had jurisdiction to make the initial custody determination under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), O.C.G.A. § 19-9-40 et seq., specifically O.C.G.A. § 19-9-61(a) and (b), and no other court did since Georgia was the only state, including Italy, that could qualify as the “home state” of the parties’ child pursuant to the UCCJEA, O.C.G.A. § 19-9-41(7), at the time either the Italian custody proceeding or the Georgia proceeding was commenced and at the time the trial court entered the court’s initial child custody order; under the UCCJEA, the jurisdictional inquiry entered into by the Italian court was insufficient because the Italian court undertook no analysis of the home state of the child or of any other factors that could be

considered a substitute for such but simply found that the prerequisites for jurisdiction over a divorce action were met. Bellew v. Larese, 288 Ga. 495, 706 S.E.2d 78, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 91 (2011). Trial court did not abuse the court’s discretion by denying a wife’s motion to stay the Georgia divorce proceeding commenced by the husband in lieu of the State of New York proceeding the wife filed because the record showed that the wife and children had lived in Georgia with the husband since 2000 and continued to live in Georgia until sometime after the couple filed their respective petitions for divorce; thus, Georgia was the home state of the children for the purposes of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, O.C.G.A. § 19-9-40 et seq., and New York was not. Black v. Black, 292 Ga. 691, 740 S.E.2d 613, 2013 Ga. LEXIS 301 (2013). Attempt to retain perpetual jurisdiction unconstitutional. - Ohio court’s attempt to retain perpetual jurisdiction of children by an initial decree allowing the mother to move to Georgia only on condition that she submit eternally to the jurisdiction of Ohio was essentially unconstitutional for preventing the mother and her children from living wherever the mother who had legal custody chose. Gouse v. Wilson, 207 Ga. App. 574, 428 S.E.2d 571, 1993 Ga. App. LEXIS 279 (1993), aff’d in part, 263 Ga. 887, 441 S.E.2d 57, 1994 Ga. LEXIS 133 (1994) (decided under former Code Section 19-954).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 1 Am. Jur. 2d, Abatement, Survival and Revival, §§ 18, 19, 33. 24 Am. Jur. 2d, Divorce and Separation, § 142 et seq. C.J.S. 1 C.J.S., Abatement and Revival, §§ 38, 53. 27A C.J.S., Divorce, § 141 et seq. 27C C.J.S., Divorce, § 1385 et seq. U.L.A. Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (U.L.A.) § 6. ALR. What types of proceedings or determinations are governed by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA)

or the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 78 A.L.R.4th 1028. Significant connection jurisdiction of court under § 3(a)(2) of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 USCS § 1738A(c)(2)(B), 5 A.L.R.5th 550; 67 A.L.R.5th 1. Abandonment and emergency jurisdiction of court under § 3(a)(3) of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 USCS § 1738A(c)(2)(C), 5 A.L.R.5th 788. Pending proceeding in another state as

ground for declining jurisdiction under § 6(a) of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) or the Parental

Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(g), 20 A.L.R.5th 700.